In the current international context, the Catholic Church remains convinced that to encourage peace and understanding between peoples and individuals it is necessary and urgent that religions and their symbols be respected, and that the faithful not be subjected to provocations injuring their outlook and religious feelings.

Oh does it. Is that what the Catholic Church remains convinced. That religions must be respected, and the faithful must not have their religious feelings injured. Religions must be respected because – erm – because they have no truck with evidence, therefore their need for and right to mandatory respect are self-evident. The faithful must not have their religious feelings injured because – erm – otherwise they might have to hear that their religious feelings are based on a human-made fiction, and they don’t like hearing that.

For the faithful as well as for all people of goodwill, the only path that leads to peace and brotherhood is that of respect for other people’s convictions and religious practices, in order to ensure that all societies ensure the free exercise of religion.

There’s that absurd assumption that we saw Frattini make last week – that ‘the free exercise of religion’ requires everyone else’s respect. What childishly tyrannical nonsense! We’re free to do all sorts of things even if no one else in the entire world respects what we are doing. Freedom to do something does not require oblations and obeisance from other people, and it’s grandiose and demanding to claim that it does. But it’s just typical. Freedom for us and silence for you – that’s what that boils down to. Well, dream on, popey. I don’t respect you or your religious ‘feelings’ and you can’t make me.

Grand Imam Mohammed Sayyed Tantawi of al-Azhar University, the world’s highest Sunni Muslim seat of learning, said the Danish prime minister must apologise for the drawings and further demanded that the world’s religious leaders, including him and Pope Benedict XVI, meet to write a law that “condemns insulting any religion, including the Holy Scriptures and the prophets.” He said the United Nation should impose the law on all countries.

Must. Demanded. Law. Impose. All. Bossy stuff! Bossy, demanding, presumptuous stuff coming out of these clerical guys. Well – no. Sorry, bub, but no. And the more you try to order us to, the less inclined we are to ‘respect’ you. There’s a direct equation here, which you would do well to heed. It is precisely because you clerical guys are so fond of trying to tell all of us what to do that some of us don’t ‘respect’ you but think you’re tyrannical shits instead. See how that works? If you want respect, try being respectable. Until then, piss off.

I’ll agree with Stewart. There’s no room for tolerance in any of these faiths-especially the monotheistic ones. Except for the watered-down moderates who enable the wackos.

Each “faith” claims to be the unique, only, true faith. So, it comes down to a temporary truce, with each wacky religion always conspiring to conquer the other. How is this a path to brotherhood and peace? It sounds more like Hobbes.

I’ll be very interested to see how the United Nations can “impose the law on all countries” given that it has no law- enforcement capacity.

Maybe if any such law *was* enforced then “Science” and “reason” should be formally set up as a religion? IN that case ill- informed criticism and bullying by religious nutters could be condemned as blasphemy. NOwhere near as good as freedom of speech of course but in such a world it may be the best recourse.

It is an article of faith of the Church of Waldo (reformed) that anything whatsover said by Mohammed Sayyed Tantawi or Ratzinger is an insult against The One True Creed, offensive as all get out, and an unforgiveable blasphemy against the Great Waldo (peace be upon him, yadda yadda*). I thus demand that neither one of these people ever opens his festering mouth again, and that punitive laws be enacted by the UN to prevent such provocative disrespect of our sacred hangups.